turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Adolph Sutro
"People Born in Prussia" would seem a viable candidate for the "People born in defunct countries" category. TR 18:25, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :Prussia is not defunct! It lives on in the hearts of Hohenzollern lovers everywhere! Heil dir im Siegerkranz, Herrescher des Vaterlands! Heil, Kaiser, dir! :Seriously, though--Did a country go defunct if it unified with its neigbors on its own terms? Turtle Fan 18:33, November 30, 2009 (UTC) ::Prussia continued fairly independently within Germany until WW 2, so up to that, I agree with you. The state was dismantled by the Anglo-Americans in 1947, and reshuffled into other subdivisions. Since there is nothing on the German map that even remotely resembles Prussia, I think we can agree its defunct as of '47. TR 18:46, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :::Really? I assumed it was still there. I know most German states tend to adhere more or less to the old pre-unification kingdoms, in areas which have managed to remain Germany all through the interim. All right, defunct it is. Turtle Fan 19:04, November 30, 2009 (UTC) ::::That was do entirely to the Anglo-Americans' (incorrect) perception that Nazism was somehow the inevitable consequence of Prussian militarism. Stalin disagreed, actually. He wanted Prussia to stay. TR 20:15, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :::::Nazism flowing from Prussian militarism is stupid. Where'd they come up with that one, 1901? Kudos to Stalin for not being a friggin dumb-ass. Turtle Fan 20:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC) On another note--Clemens certainly didn't like Sutro, but was the real Sutro a good mayor? I've never heard of him under any context but this. Turtle Fan 18:35, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :Not sure either, for the same reasons. I do find it interesting that he may have at one point owned 1/12 of the land in the city during his term, although that doesn't prove he was a bad mayor. Certainly not at that period of history. TR 18:46, November 30, 2009 (UTC) ::Frisco was still sort of a frontier town at this time--an advanced one, but still a far cry from a staid old metropolis. The number of citizens prominent enough to be considered for mayorship would have been rather small. A major landowner would be one of them. Perhaps they assumed that, since he already owned so much and was so wealthy, he wouldn't find corruption quite so tempting. If he acquired his holdings before he was elected, that is--I don't even know that much. ::Anyway, the late nineteenth century was a pretty good time for SF, so even if he was a bad mayor, he doesn't appear to have done any lasting damage. Turtle Fan 19:04, November 30, 2009 (UTC) I did a quick, and I do mean quick, search on him. It appears he was considered a bad mayor. The Populists drafted him because he was popular, because he'd worked to make culture available to the common man, and because he was willing to take on Southern Pacific. But they found he was ill-suited to holding political office and dumped him. Turtle Fan 20:41, November 30, 2009 (UTC)